What is Rand Paul's stance on a preemptive war? The Rand Doctrine, as opposed to the Bush Doctrine? Would he break with his father on their stance on war and nukes in the hands of countries such as North Korea and Iran?

"Pre-emptive" war, so-called, is merely a euphemism for "aggressive" war, which is illegal.

Bravo to Paul Rand, his other policy views notwithstanding, on filibustering to oppose the appointment of John Brennan for head of C.I.A. Complicit in our torture and drone programs, Brennan should be prosecuted for war crimes, (along with his present and previous superiors).

The conversation is way overdue, Hagar. I don't think the matter will ever concern more than a few people though. War on this, war on that. It's all war on people. If you don't know who the people are or where they might be found then you are the people.

How about someone please ask our president no-math and vice president ash-tray if they would PLEASE come up with a doctrine. Any doctrine.

At least something other than:"Democrats like killing Americans for fun and profit! Shotguns through doors or missiles in Peoria we isa smart power! Look, an evil rethuglican squirrel with a laser mount ... DAMN YOU BUSH!"

My opinion of Rand Paul improved quite a bit following his filibuster yesterday. He got a number of us thinking about questions we formerly glossed over and he did it it a traditional, non-confrontational way. The standing ovation at the conclusion of his filibuster demonstrated that I am not alone in this sentiment. I expect the administration to start attacking him ruthlessly now and the major news outlets to support that effort.

"Pre-emptive" war, so-called, is merely a euphemism for "aggressive" war, which is illegal.

I remember the reaction of some of the Iranian street thugs who took over our embassy (may have been the Dinner Jacket himself) when they found out the Canucks had hidden some of our diplomatic personnel in their embassy and had smuggled them out of the country when they closed their embassy,

No. But don't fall into Autocrat Fallacy as the Democrats are. Just because you believe that you would use the power to kill a domestic terrorist justly. That doesn't make the legal standing just.

You are not an immortal police force who will forever curb the sins of man. Legal standing will far out live us.

And *your* domestic terrorist today is tomorrow's christian talking to a friend about the evil of Mohammad. Or the actress sitting on an anti-aircraft gun aimed at our planes. Or whatever the faction of the tomorrow deems domestic terrorism.

People setting a legal standard of military force during a police issue ( for example an idea like... "I'm OK if Clinton would have used a drone to drop a hellfire missile on McVeigh while driving from Kansas to Oklahoma" ) and making it a legal standing ... That is dangerous.

This is something we can not answer with a "Say Yes or No". We need to really hash this out. And sadly our administrative branch isn't smart enough to handle it. And 90% of the legislative branch was elected by visual or vocal popularity contest and don't have the intelligence either.

Killing people without due process of law is a violation of the constitution, and of the precepts of our republic.

While that is true, it is worth noting that "due process of law" can be a declaration of war by Congress. That's why it is legal to kill enemy soldiers and bomb enemy cities during wartime.

We are, as a matter of law, at war with al Qaeda. The problem here is defining who counds as an "al Qaeda combatant"; it is an ill-defined category, especially if you expand it to include individuals who haven't actually attacked us yet. That's why the lack of government transparency is so troubling. "The President can kill anyone he says is in al Qaeda, no matter who or where they are, and he doesn't have to share any evidence that they were actually enemy combatants" cannot be the standard.

Also, Cook -- if you'll check the Constitution, you'll see that *violating* the Constitution isn't on the (extremely short) list of things that qualifies as treason. A person who thinks the President can kill anyone he wants is a fool, not a traitor.

The reason Kerry is arguably a traitor is that VVAW coordinated with the government of North Vietnam, a nation we were then at war with. The people who did so were indisputably traitors under the Constitutional definition; the only question is whether Kerry himself knew about the meetings in question.

THe president has war powers. Now suppose we were talking about a civil war. Would he have the power to drone strike people in this country, if that were the tool he were to use? I would say, yes. Granted, we aren't in the midst of a civil war, but we've had one in the past. The consitution didn't really play much of a roll in Ulysses S Grant scorched earth warfare.Now lets take terrorism and the idea that it's a war. Suppose that we get a situation akin to Israel where we have a large group of people living in our midst perhaps even Americans blowing up various targets inside our cities. Would we have the ability to drone strike then?I would say yes. Now, we don't have that situation currently, but we are talking about the presidents powers during extraordinary circumstances. If America ever becomes Israel, how would you argue that the president couldn't do it? It would be a war inside the US. But does that mean that the president shoudl be able to kill people minding their own business sitting at a Starbucks? WHy would any president do that? Clearly the president would have that power, but only in the most extraordinary of circumstances. He'd have to show that this use of that power rose to extraordinary circumstances and then justify it to the media and congress.

Rand Paul's hypothetical was a ludicrous one. because it treated an ordinary situation like an extraordinary one. The president would have such powers, but would never use them (or would do so at his peril) in a non extraordinary situation.

Thomas Jefferson:"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

As for those who think it absurd to fear the President's (fabricated) power to kill (or imprison indefinitely) anyone he chooses, American citizens included, national boundaries not respected, "because, like, after all...what would be the point of bombing someone sipping coffee at Starbuck," that is a dangerous misapprehension of the danger.

It places the President above the law, and while you or I may not think ourselves worthy targets for government oppression, for being disappeared or assassinated, it is not what we do or think that determines that. It's what the government thinks, what they perceive, what they determine to be subversive to the state.

If the President can kill anyone at will, why can he not strip away freedom of speech at will? He might think pointed criticism of his policies are subversive of respect for the state's power and prerogative. He might assert that allowing the cancer of disrespect and disobedience to spread to others is an existential threat to the life of the state, and thus must be stamped out at its lowliest germination. Thus does tyranny become real.

Why does China care enough about a blogger making mild criticisms about the government in an email or blog post to slap said blogger in prison for 10 years? Why would we not think this could happen here?

The water comes closer to the boil and we frogs barely notice the warming.

What about during a civil war type scenario. Can the president authorize the killing of Americans who are say, trying to overthrow the govt or are at war with the US.

Krauthammer uses the extreme example of John Walker Lindh leading an army of jihadists in Toledo Ohio who is in a Starbucks after saying taking over a town. Can the President take out John Walker Lindh then? Could he take out a non American then?

He followed up with the point that the odds of this ever happening are extremely slim, but that's not the point. Another point would be the Israel scenario.

two improbable scenarios in our current climate,but we are talking about about extreme circumstances.

I don't think the administration ever suggested that they could just kill someone sitting in a starbucks who may have talked to a potential terrorist once but who was otherwise doing nothing.

Robert Cook wrote:It places the President above the law, and while you or I may not think ourselves worthy targets for government oppression, for being disappeared or assassinated, it is not what we do or think that determines that. It's what the government thinks, what they perceive, what they determine to be subversive to the state.

The president is the commander in chief. Most people under the constitution do not have commander in chief powers. Therefore, I wouldn' say he is above the law, but different rules apply.

If Abraham Lincoln could fight the South during a Civil War, and direct his armies to kill the Southern soldiers (who are Americans) then clearly he has that power. If union soldiers stumbled upon some confederates and the confederates were not actively engaged in a fight at the moment, they could still kill those soldiers. If soldiers would have that power, then why woudln't the president who is the commander in chief of all of his soldiers.

The Civil War took place on American soil with Americans fighting and killing Americans without due process.

We are very far from a civil war at this stage in history, but if Lincoln had drone strikes in his arsenal would the argument be that he couldn't use them? Ulysses Grant used scorched earth tactics and burned southerners farms to the ground. Southerners who were Americans. Who didn't get trials before having their property destroyed.

Granted, we're not usually in the middle of a war in the states. However, we're talking about extreme scenarios whereby a president might be allowed to authorize a drone strike.

"Krauthammer uses the extreme example of John Walker Lindh leading an army of jihadists in Toledo Ohio who is in a Starbucks after saying taking over a town."

That's not an "extreme" example, that's a fucking stupid example.

First, why does he pick on poor John Walker Lindh to be his monster du jour? Lindh wasn't a jihadist and was a hapless kid who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. What was done to him by our government was a travesty.

That aside, contriving modern day "Red Dawn" scenarios to justify Presidential assassinations is intellectually dishonest, (nothing new for Krauthammer).

If we were fighting pitched battles in our streets, either citizen against citizen in a civil war, or citizen against invaders, the civil order by definition will have been smashed, and whatever ruling authority remained extant would do what it would do without regard for whatever remained of the law. This is not what Obama's claimed power is about. He claims he may imprison anyone anywhere in the world indefinitely, including Americans, on his say so, and without regard for due process, (or the laws of other nations, for that matter). He says he may kill anyone in the world, anywhere, including Americans, on his say so and without regard for due process.

Why would he find it necessary to assert such power for himself, (for the office)? In the event of war within our borders, such powers would be employed in any case, so the assertion by him now that he has these powers must chill us and cause us to wonder...what does he (the ruling authorities, in general), anticipate? Why would he lay this groundwork now, and for what?

This is not about paranoid pot-boiler fantasies, this is about the real world, now, and about the president essentially making the constitution a dead letter and his word absolute law.

Robert Cook said...What do you imagine would happen? That all the members of the mosque would swarm over you and flay your flesh from your bones?

"Or ask militant atheist Dawkins about the god of the Koran. In private. And then on Al-Jazeerah."

?????

This simply baffles me.

Al-Jazeerah did ask him that question. He, in fear, said nothing. After going off on Christians and Jews he tossed his freedom to speak his mind into the mud out of fear.

As for the "flay your flesh from your bones" comment. Are you willing to insult Allah? There was a reason Dawkins was afraid. There are a lot of dead people around the world who provided the reason for his fear.

That is the point of my argument.

I'm not saying that they could literally take the streets and conquer our nation. Rather we, exactly like Dawkins, are willing to lay aside our freedoms in the false hope of security.

Revenant, I know what is being said. And I'm saying we ARE destroying liberty for security. And liberals happily do so. And conservative happily do so.

First, why does he pick on poor John Walker Lindh to be his monster du jour? Lindh wasn't a jihadist and was a hapless kid who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. What was done to him by our government was a travesty.

Because John Walker Lindh was known as an American who fought in Afghanistan against the US. Sheesh.

Robert Cook wrote:Why would he find it necessary to assert such power for himself, (for the office)? In the event of war within our borders, such powers would be employed in any case, so the assertion by him now that he has these powers must chill us and cause us to wonder...what does he (the ruling authorities, in general), anticipate? Why would he lay this groundwork now, and for what?

This is not about paranoid pot-boiler fantasies, this is about the real world, now, and about the president essentially making the constitution a dead letter and his word absolute law.

So surely you can provide examples where either OBama or Bush have actually used this power in this country EVER?

It is simply stating the fact that the president would in fact have such powers but would only use them in extreme circumstances, circumstances we probably never will see in our lifetimes.

But these extreme examples have occurred from time to time. 9/11, the Civil War, Pearl Harbor etc.

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threatSo, the first and second course of action will not be dropping a bomb on someone in a Starbucks. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

Yet even here we can see the limitation on this. THe administration while initially arguing that we would try all terrorists, or people like KSM in civilian courts, logistically and realistically this became an impossibility (in those rare cases where we cant do it).

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront.

it was a stupid hypothetical, since absent any extenuating details would offer no reason why any administration would need to use a drone strike in that particular case. Talk about arguing a strawman.

However:It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.

How are you doubting this. 9/11. We were going to shoot down our own planes. Absent 9/11 it would be absurd for us to even fathom such an idea. But, could the President authorize that we shoot down Passenger jets? OF course he could. That's an example of an extreme scenario.

For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

Saying that the president could conceivably use the military and military assests in this country in extreme circumstances is not some crazy notion. But even so, thats not a suggestion that there are any plans to do so.When civil order broke down in NO the national guard was brought in. THere was no confrontation with people that involved the use of said forces, but what if there were. If the president can send in the National Guard, then why would he not be able to authorize a drone strike?

Rand Paul is getting too hung up on the idea of a drone strike. As if a drone strike is some magical evil device used by the military Would Rand Paul ever make the argument that the president had no authority to send in the national guard under any circumstance into our cities?If there is a situation that might exist that would require a president to send the National Guard into a city and he is authorized to do so, why would he be precluded from sending in any other asset.

A president could in theory drop a nuke on one of our own cities. He would have that ability. But do I ever for see the president actually doing that? No.

What Rand Paul did was awesome cool. But the guy who really impresses is Ted Cruz. In his law practice, he's already argued multiple cases before the Supreme Court. As that clip makes clear, he's got a razor sharp lawyer's mind, and a bulldog tenacity. He's really quick.

It's embarrassing how many Senators (and Attorney Generals!) appear to know squat about our U.S. Constitution. They kiss ass, throw softballs, smile at the cameras. Ugh.

Ted Cruz is the real deal.

I can't tell you how awesome it is to have guys who pay attention to our Constitution sitting in our Senate. Specifically, Ted Cruz is now sitting on the Senate Judiciary committee. Wow. Wow wow wow. I almost want another spot on the Supreme Court to open up so that Obama can nominate somebody and Cruz can slice 'em and dice 'em. Almost.

He said the Obama administration had no intention of carrying out drone strikes on American soil.

But your intention tomorrow can be different from your intention today. Similarly a "policy matter" can change from one week to the next.

The Senator was not asking politely what the Obama administration intended to do. Nor was he asking about its internal policies. The Senator wanted a legal ruling on what the Obama administration thought it could do under our Constitution.

After ducking and weaving, Holder says he can think of examples of when a drone strike would be okay. And he gives two examples. But he's not limiting himself to those examples.

He's sliding around like a weasel, not answering the question, and leaving it open what sorts of drone strikes Obama can do. Just like he's already done around the world!

The one who really smacks Holder was Ted Cruz. It's clear, at least to me, that Holder is pretending not to understand the question. (Either that or he's really dumb). But finally he is dragged kicking and screaming to say, "No."

And he sends a second letter to Rand Paul, this one brief and to the point.

And what's fascinating about this fight is that it shows a very useful split between the populist tea party, and the ruling class Republicans. See, for instance, this article at ABC. They are trying to mock Paul, and they are gleeful at the "divisions" among the Republicans.

And yet Rand Paul did nothing but help himself. He seemed incredibly polite, incredibly serious, and he had some very important points to raise.

And if it's so right-wing, why is, for instance, the New Yorker siding with Paul and against Holder?

There are a lot of liberals who are unhappy with Obama's drone kills. So it's a lot of fun dividing up the other side for a change. And I think the Democrats were feeling the heat. For instance, journalists are asking the Rand Paul question at press conferences.

About this specifically. What are you talking about? When have I argued anything like that?

You are defending Lydia's "we need to kill people without trial" argument by citing American Muslims as an existential threat.

Federalist 10's solution to the problem of factionalism was... to adopt a republican system of government. Which we did.

The Founders lived in a nation where people who *actually* wanted to destroy the nation were both far more numerous and far more dedicated to that end than American Muslims are. Yet they flatly rejected the notion that the appropriate response to perceived threats was extrajudicial assassination. Think about that.

The actual "suicide pact" quote by Jackson is closer to what you're talking about -- the speaker was advocating racist violence, which certainly WAS "a big deal" and in its heyday killed Americans at a greater rate than AQ has managed. Yet we survived -- thrived, even -- despite our signing that "suicide pact" to allow free speech by racists.

Revenant said...You are defending Lydia's "we need to kill people without trial" argument by citing American Muslims as an existential threat.

So stating facts that someone *you* disagree with and can use makes you lump ME in with them? Interesting. But, you really need to read what I wrote rather than fill in your opinion.

Background Stuff ...Just last month around the world over 1000 people were killed and 1500 were critically injured in Jihadi attacks. Month after month. Thousand and thousands are murdered in the name of Allah. I guess telling that truth makes me really really evil.

I'll let Lydia spin that however she wants. She can speak for herself.

Now Me ...My complaint is that those attacks make the leaders and speakers of our country cowards. Which is the point of those attacks. And they are very effective. Not to conquer nations, but to force a surrender of our rights. To get a "the future doesn't belong to those that insult the prophet" from our president.

Know why Obama said that? Because he is a coward and will not protect our rights.

Do you see national comedians mock Islam? A movie about the "Last Temptation of an old Pedophile"? Nope. Because they are scared wimps.

Are our leaders willing to stand up to internal assaults by "progressives" on free speech, freedom of religion, the separation of church and state? Nope, they will cower before political correctness and fear.

Are YOU willing to honestly discuss the Democrat's support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Libya, and Syria? A support to the detriment of millions in the middle east?

Terror is a very effective tactic. But, only if you are willing to be terrorized. You want to stop Islamic terror? A hell-fire missile isn't the end solution.

Stop giving in. Mock them. Prove you have a backbone and that terror doesn't work. Point out the horrors of living under Sharia law. Protect free speech by using free speech. Our leaders (political and social) need to be willing to be killed for their freedoms.

My complaint against progressives is that I see them removing the freedoms of our nation for a false security.

Now, my complaint against those that overly support military action against american citizens is they are arguing an autocrat fallacy. You may believe that TODAY you killed a terrorist. But what about the lives of your great grand-children? Are you willing to put their lives in the hands of the worst of your own heart?

For example, jr565 argued that a future president wouldn't nuke his own city. Really? I'm sure few in Europe and Asia foresaw that their own leaders would murder hundreds of millions of their own people. Yet, they did. We need to make laws for the next hundred years. Not for today's terrorists.